Prime Minister Blair hopes he can get the Iranians to realize they have to release the hostages. I'm just wondering: What if they don't?

My wife and I watched "Speed" again last week, so I have a variation on an idea: Shoot the hostage.

Only as a last resort, of course.

And I'm not being cavalier. When I was in the Army, with the Iran Hostage Crisis still a fresh memory, some buddies and I were up late one night in a bar. Some of those present were Vietnam vets. As can happen talk turned to situations such as those British sailors now find themselves in. We all of us agreed that if it came to it we'd prefer that our government launch a rescue attempt and, if it came to it, destroy the facility we were being held in. "We're cavalry," one of the Vietnam vets said, "we eat our dead." (He may have had a bit too much to drink.)

Of course, someone said that if we were being held by muslims, the facility would probably be a kindergarten.

I know: I still sound cavalier. But it's not like I'm suggesting doing something the Iranians might do. If the situation were reversed, they'd find some Brit somewhere in the world and slice his head off, maybe. Besides, I'm tongue in cheek here. I don't really think the British should "shoot the hostages." My point is just that I think the British will sooner end this hostage crisis by "shooting the hostages" than by negotiating with Iran. Even if successful on this occasion, in the long run it tells the Iranians they can commit an act of war with impunity.

That conversation in the bar, however, really did happen.